Forrest v. Messenger’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 1984
11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Frederick v. Goodbee · Jones v. Goss · Dunham v. Town of Slidell · Hunter v. Forrest · Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. Baldwin Lumber Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It was established on trial of the rule that the building involved herein had been completely demolished and the material removed from the land. In view of this situation, appellant makes the point that no good purpose would or could be subserved by issuance of injunction prohibiting him from doing something that has already been done; that could not restore the status quo ante. In effect he argues that the matter is now moot. The point is well taken. It would be a vain and idle thing, as argued, for a court, in such circumstances, to issue an injunction. Nothing could be accomplished by so doing. The jurisprudence of this state well supports the principle which, tersely stated, is that: "`Rights already lost and wrongs already perpetrated cannot be corrected by injunction.' See: Adams v. Town of Ruston, 3 La.App. 188 , and other cases therein cited; Dunham et al. v. Town of Slidell, 133 La. 212 , 62 So. 635 ; Trevigne v. School Board, 31 La. Ann. 105 ." See, also, 43 C.J.S. Injunctions § 4, p. 408.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"It may be said that plaintiff has the civil or legal possession of the land but that is not sufficient to sustain a possessory action. Code of Practice, Article No. 49; Crichton et al. v. Giddens et al., 148 La. 970 , 88 So. 236 . "Had he once held the real, actual and physical possession of the land which was followed by civil and legal possession, this would be sufficient for the purpose of the possessory action but such is not the case."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.